the baptismal water which is filled with the Holy Ghost, is in relation to the regenerate man, what the womb of the Virgin filled with the same Spirit was in relation to the sinless Redeemer, to whom she gave birth, Sermo 24. 3; 25. 5, (in Griesbach, p. 153.)

(3) Thus Gregory of Nazianzum adds a fourth baptism to the three already mentioned (viz. the baptisms of Moses, John, and Christ), that of martyrdom and of blood with which Christ himself was baptized; this baptism surpasses the others, in proportion as it is free from sin. Yea (he adds) I know even a fifth, viz. that of tears (rò rãv dangów), but it is still more difficult, because it is necessary to wet one's couch every night with tears, Orat. xxxix. 17, p. 688. But......" how many tears have we to shed, before they equal the flood of the baptismal bath ?” Orat. lx. 9, p. 696. Ullmann, p. 459. 465. 480.

(*) Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. lx.) opposed the delay of baptism, which was founded partly on deference paid to the sacrament, partly on incorrect views and immoral tendencies, partly on absurd prejudices. Comp. Ullmann, p. 466, ss. Concerning the baptism of infants, he declared (Ulm. p. 713.) "that it was better that they should be sanctified without their own consciousness, than that they should depart being neither sealed, nor consecrated,” (ἢ ἀπελθεῖν ἀσφράγιστα καὶ ἀτέλεστα.) In support of his view he appealed to the rite of circumcision which was performed on the eighth day (comp. the opinion of Fidus § 72, note 6,) the striking of the blood on the door-posts, etc. Gregory, nevertheless, thought that healthy children might wait till the third year, or somewhere there about, because they would be able then to hear and to utter something of the words (uvOTIVT) used at the performance of the rite, though they might not perfectly understand them, but get rather a general impression of them. His judgment, however, was mild concerning those children who die before baptism, because he well distinguished between intentional and unintentional delay. Yet he did not think that they would obtain perfect salvation. Comp. Ullmann, 1. c.

Comp. e. g. the Confession of Augsburg, i. c. 11. Gregory of Nyssa also opposed the delay in a separate discourse πρὸς τοὺς βραδύνοντας εἰς τὸ βά#μа. Opp. T. ii. p. 215. Chrysostom uses similar language. Comp. Neander, Chrysostomus, i. p. 6. and 74-77. A. F. Büsching, de procrastinatione baptismi apud veteres ejusque causis. Halæ 1747. 4.

(5) That Gregory did not, like Augustine, suppose an intimate connection between baptism and original sin, is evident from his assertion (Orat. 40, quoted by Ullmann, p. 476.) that sins committed by children from ignorance, could not be imputed to them on account of their tender age. Comp. what Chrysostom said on this subject according to the quotation of Julian given by Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. 3. p. 138: Hac de causa etiam infantes baptizamus, cum non sint coinquinati peccato, ut eis addatur sanctitas, justitia, adoptio, hæreditas, fraternitas Christi, ut ejus membra sint; the opinions of Theodore of Mopsuestia are also stated there. Augustine did not combat the Pelagians because they rejected baptism, but because they did not draw the same inferences from the rite in question, which he drew from it. The Pelagians admitted that the design of baptism was the remissio peccatorum, but they understood by it the remission of future sins. Julian went so far as to anathematize those who did not acknowledge the necessity of infantbaptism, Opus imp. contra Jul. iii. 149. Though the Pelagians might have been easily induced by their principles to ascribe a merely symbolical significance to baptism, as an external rite, yet in this, as well as in many other respects, they could not develope their system entirely independent of the ecclesiastical tradition of their age; they endeavoured therefore to reconcile it in the best possible manner with their principles, which owed their origin to quite different causes." Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. p. 1389.

66

(6) Concerning infants that die without being baptized, Pelagius expressed himself in cautious terms (quo non eant, scio, quo eant, nescio.) Ambrose de Abrah. ii. 11, had previously taught: Nemo adscendit in regnum cœlorum, nisi per sacramentum baptismatis...... Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Utique nullum excipit, non infantem, non aliqua præventum necessitate. Habeant tamen illam opertam pœnarum immunitatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem. Comp. Wiggers, i. p. 422. Augustine's views on this point were at first milder, de libero arb.

• Neander traces the difference of opinion existing between the eastern and the western church with regard to baptism to their different mode of viewing the doctrine of redemption; the former regarded rather the positive, the latter the negative aspect.

1

iii. c. 23, but afterwards he was compelled by the consequences of his own system to use harsher expressions. His line of argument is as follows: Every man is born in ein, and stands therefore in need of pardon. He obtains it by baptism; it cleanses children from original sin, and those who are baptized in later years, not only from original sin, but also from actual transgressions. (Enchir. ad Laurent. 43.) Since baptism is the only and necessary condition of salvation (comp. note 2,) it follows that unbaptized children are condemned (this fully accorded with his views on predestination.) He was nevertheless disposed to look upon this condemnation as mitissima and tolerabilior (Ep. 186. 27. [c. 8.] de pecc. mer. i. 28. [c. 20,]) though he opposed the doctrine condemned by the synod of Carthage, (A. D. 419,) of an intermediate state, in which unbaptized infants were said to be. Comp. Sermo 294: Hoc novum in ecclesia, prius inauditum est, esse salutem æternam præter regnum cœlorum, esse salutem æternam præter regnum Dei. With regard to baptized children, Augustine, as well as the catholic church in general, supposed (the former in accordance with his idealistic doctrine of the church) that the church represents (by means of the godfathers and godmothers) the faith of the children. "His view seems to have been somewhat as follows: As the child is nourished by the natural powers of his mother after the flesh, before his bodily, independent existence is fully developed, so is he nourished by the higher powers of his spiritual mother, the church, before he has attained unto independent spiritual developement and self-consciousness. This idea would be true to a certain extent, if the visible church corresponded to its ideal." Neander, Kirchengesch. p. 1394.

(7) Basil Ep. can. 1, declared the baptism of heretics void at least when its mode differed from that of the catholic church, or when a different meaning was attached to it; thus he rejected. the baptism of the Montanists, because they understood Montanus to be the paraclete. But he was disposed to admit dissenters without baptism, and as a general rule advised to comply with the custom of each separate church.-Gregory of Nazianzum rejected the baptism of notorious heretics (r προδήλως κατεγνωσμένων.) Generally speaking he did not make tha efficacy of baptism depend on the external merit of the church or the inherent moral desert (doria) of the person to be baptized. He illustrated this by the case of two rings, the one

made of gold, the other of brass, both of which bear the same stamp, Orat. 40, in Ullmann, p. 473-75.

(8) De baptismo contra Donatistas lib. vii. (in Opp. Ben. Tom. ix.) It is interesting to see how Augustine seeks to justify Cyprian, from whom he differs; the passages are given in Munscher edit. by von Cölln, p. 477.-The limitation spoken of was, that the rite of baptism, if performed out of the catholic church, might be considered valid, but that so far from proving a blessing to the baptized, it would increase their guilt, if they did not afterwards join the catholic church. Thus "the exclusiveness of the catholic church, which seemed to be objected to on the one hand, was carried to an extreme length on the other.” Rothe, Anfänge der christlichen Kirche, p. 685.—The ceremony of laying up of hands was also performed on the converts. Leo the Great insisted upon this point, Ep. 159, 7. 166, 2. 167, 18. (Griesbach, p. 155.)

(9) They were condemned by the Conc. Arel. 314. can. 8. Opt. Mil. de schism. Donat. v. c. 3....Quid vobis (Donatistis) visum est, non post nos, sed post Trinitatem baptisma geminare? Cujus de sacramento non leve certamen innatum est, et dubitatur an post Trinitatem in eadem Trinitate hoc iterum liceat facere. Vos dicitis: licet; nos dicimus: non licet. Inter licet vestrum et non licet nostrum natant et remigant animæ populorum.

(10) Concerning the baptism of the Manichæans, on which we have but "scanty information," comp. Baur, manich. Religionssystem, p. 273.

(11) Socrat. v. 24, blamed the Eunomians, because............TO βάπτισμα παρεχάραξαν· οὐ γὰρ εἰς τριάδα, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ βαπτίζουσι θάνατον. They probably avoided the use of the common formula, which Eunomius elsewhere adduces as a proof that the Spirit is the third person, in order to prevent the unlearned from forming any incorrect views concerning the Trinity. Comp. Klose, Eunomius, p. 32. Rudelbach, über die Sacramentsworte, p. 25. According to Sozom. vi. 26, the Eunomians are said to have rebaptized all who joined their party.

§ 138.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Marheinecke (comp. § 73.) p. 32—65. K. Meyer, p. 18-38.

The mysterious connection supposed to exist between the two natures of Christ, corresponded to the idea of a mystical connection subsisting between the body of Christ and the bread used in the Lord's Supper on the one hand, and between his blood and the wine on the other.(1) This idea, which had taken its rise in the preceding period, was now farther carried out by means of the more fully developed terminology of the church, and by the introduction of liturgical formula, which substituted mystical ceremonies for the simple apostolical rite.(2) The doctrine of the consubstantiality of Christ's body and blood with the visible elements, was generally held during this period both by the Greek (Cyrill and Chrysostom,) and Latin churches, (Hilary and Ambrose,) though some writers spoke of a real change from the one into the other.(3) Theodoret brought most prominently forward the symbolical import of this ordinance—a view which some other Fathers adopted along with the realistic mode of interpretation,(4) while Augustine sought to unite its more profound mystical significance with the symbolical.(5) He also offered a firm opposition(6) to the superstitious reverence which many writers of the present age seemed disposed to pay to the sacrament in question.(7) Gelasius, bishop of Rome, spoke very decidedly against the idea of a real change.(8) The notion of a daily repeated sacrifice is distinctly set forth in the writings of Gregory the Great.(9)

(1) The controversy respecting the natures of Christ may be said to be repeated in the different views on the Lord's Supper,